Clinical End Points in Coronary Stent Trials

Donald E. Cutlip(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Stephan Windecker(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Roxana Mehran(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Ashley B. Boam(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), David J. Cohen(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Gerrit‐Anne van Es(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Philippe Gabríel Steg(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Marie‐Angèle Morel(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Laura Mauri(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Pascal Vranckx(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Eugène McFadden(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Alexandra J. Lansky(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Martial Hamon(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Mitchell W. Krucoff(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie), Patrick W. Serruys(Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie)
Circulation
April 30, 2007
Cited by 5,411

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although most clinical trials of coronary stents have measured nominally identical safety and effectiveness end points, differences in definitions and timing of assessment have created confusion in interpretation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Academic Research Consortium is an informal collaboration between academic research organizations in the United States and Europe. Two meetings, in Washington, DC, in January 2006 and in Dublin, Ireland, in June 2006, sponsored by the Academic Research Consortium and including representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and all device manufacturers who were working with the Food and Drug Administration on drug-eluting stent clinical trial programs, were focused on consensus end point definitions for drug-eluting stent evaluations. The effort was pursued with the objective to establish consistency among end point definitions and provide consensus recommendations. On the basis of considerations from historical legacy to key pathophysiological mechanisms and relevance to clinical interpretability, criteria for assessment of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis were developed. The broadly based consensus end point definitions in this document may be usefully applied or recognized for regulatory and clinical trial purposes. CONCLUSION: Although consensus criteria will inevitably include certain arbitrary features, consensus criteria for clinical end points provide consistency across studies that can facilitate the evaluation of safety and effectiveness of these devices.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis